VMware Workstation to Hyper-V

I’ve been using Windows 8 for more than a year, but only in a virtual machine running in VMware workstation. Recently I have been using my laptop in a dual-boot configuration, which works but confuses the Windows 7 disk which always requires a disk check on booting. I finally have a licensed Windows 8.1 as my primary OS (still in dual boot) which I can use to migrate my lab from VMware Workstation to Hyper-V.

Now VMware workstation is a fantastic product and has Hyper-V is not quite up to the same level yet. However, Hyper-V has one big advantage on Windows 8.1: it is free with the operating system. so the task begins to migrate VMware to Hyper-V. I have several Windows Servers which form a lab for CBT nuggets as well as some Linux and Centos hosts and some legacy laptops which I have P2Vd.

The logical place to start seems to be to download and install the Microsoft Virtual Machine Converter 3.0. However, this is taking a wrong turn at Albuquerque. The converter downloads and installs fine. But it is a server product which converts machines from an ESXi server to a Hyper-V host running Windows Server.

The disk2vhd from sysinternals would seem like another option but no, it will not read vmdks that I can see. It might just be the case that I have to backup my VMs and restore them. A common result in search is http://www.starwindsoftware.com/converter. I will investigate this and report in the next post.

Yosemite

I’ve never liked Mavericks. When I got this new Mac a year ago, the first thing it said when I turned it on was that a new operating system was ready to be installed, i.e. Mavericks. I installed it as the least risky time to do it before I started using it.

However it’s always been dog slow and kernel threads seemed to leak memory which required frequent reboots, especially in the home scenario here where there are typically three people logged in at once.

So as soon as Update told me there was a new O/S I decided it couldn’t be worse than Mavericks and so far that has proved to be true. Noticably faster. We have lost GPG Mail but a small price to pay until they fix it.

There’s also the reprehensible behaviour of search data being sent home to Apple and Microsoft, which I have disabled as per https://fix-macosx.com/.

Need to keep an eye on that.

In the meantime, looking forward to finding out what good stuff there is in Yosemite.

A typical IT problem

So here’s an example of a typical, frustrating user level IT problem…

I tried out Windows 8.1 in a dual boot setup on my laptop. All fine and good until something got corrupted leaving me with the known problem described here http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_8-system/pc-needs-to-be-repaired-file/5db06fb1-d8cc-47e0-b801-e5e341983e1a

The solution is to use reset/recovery media. I have tried making reset/recovery media from a second Windows 8.1 installation and I’ve spent half a day trying to get it to work without success.

I try to make Windows installation media using the instructions here http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-8/create-reset-refresh-media.

I get an error saying windows 8.1 isn’t available for online purchase in the country/region I’m in.

There’s many solutions posted to that e.g. http://wind8apps.com/12014-windows-8-1-not-available-in-your-region/

I tried that and I get another error “This platform is not supported”.

At what point do you give up? Really, I feel embarrassed for IT.

To the Cloud (Safely)

After all these years of outsourcing and Cloud computing, people are still blogging about the crazy risks of putting corporate data and emails in the Cloud.

Most of these arguments just put a negative spin on the whole Cloud concept rather than looking at the reasons and solutions. So let’s do that.

The first task of any Cloud Consultant is to ask *why* a business is considering moving to the cloud. The second task is to give advice on the benefits and risks. And where there are risks, what the various strategies are to minimise them. Nine times out of ten, businesses make changes in IT to keep costs down. As IT is generally not the core business it is viewed as an overhead as opposed to a revenue earner. Cloud is no different and businesses look to the cloud to save them money.

However, simply looking at cloud services with $ filtered spectacles falls short of understanding the complexities involved, both internally and externally. Consuming services from the cloud is a very different proposition to running services internally. Most of the skills needed to run services internally are not in the same basket as skills needed to manage vendors and consume services.

Moving to the cloud generally involves two big issues: 1. putting corporate data in the cloud and 2. putting corporate email in the cloud. Email is a kind of corporate data, but more on this later.

Let’s deal with issue 1. first.

The most common scenario is that a large company has evolved with internal systems, including SANs or NASs which are kept in a “secure” data centre. A place where physical access is restricted and where connectivity is all internal and on networks owned by the company. This is generally regarded as being high security. In order to circumvent the security of the data you need to be a malicious external hacker or a malicious internal employee. Where physical devices and storage are outside company premises, i.e. laptops these are generally protected by encryption and biometrics.

Companies who perform tape backups typically send them offsite in the care of a third party. In principal this is no different to cloud computing. You are trusting a third party with the management and content. This brings us to trust. Most people, and most organisations have a black and white view of trust. Either you trust an employee / third party, or you don’t. This idea is encouraged, almost forced by the fact that there is only one view of data: highly confidential.

One of my favorite lines from THHGTTG is when Ford Prefect asks Arthur Dent to trust him, to which Arthur replies “I do trust you. Just not very much”. Trust, like most things comes in shades of grey.

Pretty much all business is based on trust so why the big hang-up about trusting someone with your data? The problem is not the trusting per se, I think it is (lack of) knowledge about the data in question.

The first step for companies moving to the cloud is to think about the types of data they have and how to classify it. Depending on the size of the company this can be a short 1/2 day exercise or a mammoth project in it’s own right staffed by a dedicated team and implementations of filesystems capable of recording and enforcing classification metadata.

Hand-in-hand with a data classification exercise (or merely thinking about what types of data you have) is a risk assessment: what risks are the company concerned about: availability, public disclosure of sensitive information, industrial espionage? And how likely are those scenarios to occur. Given, as we are led to believe, that 80% of data breaches comes from internal employees with a grudge to bear, a company’s data might well be safer in the cloud.

Once a company has determined what types of data they have and they have assessed the risk, then it’s time to think about putting that in the cloud. The complexities I mentioned above now arise as there may need to be a process to classify data and a way of managing data based on it’s classification. The industry is immature in this regard. But the cloud can help!

Depending on what the risk view is, the cloud can be an ideal home for a large part of the companies data and in itself be a (crude but effective) method of data classification: if it’s in the cloud, we manage the risk like this, and if it’s on-premise we manage the risk like this.

So to re-cap, arguments about risking your entire company IP or being embarrassed about sensitive information being disclosed should not point the finger at the cloud: these risks exist already, wherever your data is. Understand the data, understand the risk and carefully choose your cloud provider and technology. Adopting the cloud, when approached correctly, will result in a more efficient and secure business.

More on the topic of mail later.

Users

One outcome of virtualisation, of servers and of desktops, has been an increased emphasis on applications: “it’s all about the apps”. A large percentage of IT users, perhaps everyone not working in IT directly only needs to run the apps they need to get their job done. Any more than that just gets in the way.

There are however, no industry standards when it comes to applications that I am aware of. This is a symptom of the immaturity of the industry as a whole. Apps are currently tightly bound to platforms, i.e. vendors, whether of the platform or the application itself.

What would make everyone’s life easier are standards which say “you close an app like this”, or “you save data like this” or “standard menu entries are …”.

Not only would this make user’s lives easier but it would make application writer’s lives easier too. At present, to code a user interface, a programmer may have to trade off functionality against over-complicating the interface and making it too difficult to learn or un-intuitive to use. If more standards existed, a programmer could assume more knowledge on the user’s part.

To take the best interface ideas (which is a hugely competitive area) and make them standards would be a big, and unlikely step forward in the near future.

Further ahead I can envisage apps being coded to a “standardisation level: 1,2,3 etc.” And user’s being trained to use apps coded at a certain level. In a sense, similar to standardisation of IT infrastructure through e.g. ITIL but for apps.

At the moment, I don’t think there’s even a way to measure an application to gauge how easy it is to use or how “divergent” it is from a notional standard.

An interesting area though, and certainly worthy of further research,

The Hopefully Test

Here’s something I’ve noticed over the last 12 months of project work…where IT is involved, the word “hopefully” gets used a lot. I’ve started pulling people up on that, although it’s not something I can carry on doing without becoming annoying!

It’s a reflection on how complex, unpredictable and unreliable most IT systems and projects are. People who say “hopefully” are reflecting how un-empowered they feel and how unsure of behaviour and outcome.

So far today I have heard it used a dozen times in an IT context, the last time by the receptionist at the local clinic when I needed a password reset. It’s surprisingly hard to stop saying it, I’ve tried but still catch myself doing it. It’s become embedded in our psyche about IT.

Windows backup

Just wanted to remind myself of the outcome of a fairly lengthy battle with Windows 7 trying to figure out why my backups stopped working. With the emphasis on moving to Windows 8, I wanted to P2V my physical laptop and see if I could restore it from a Windows backup – maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t.

Before I could get to this stage though my backups started failing. The link that described my problem and gave a solution is here http://superuser.com/questions/411474/windows-backup-fails-with-0x80070002-the-system-cannot-find-the-file-specified.

The relevant piece being:
DISKPART> automount enable

Although I have no idea how it got turned off.

More on Core->Gui

With some help from my colleague, Reg, I did manage to reach a point where I could install server core and then run install-windowsfeature to completion without an error.

HOWEVER, after rebooting when the command had finished, all I got was a DVD light flashing and a black screen (for 24 hours) so something still doesn’t work.

The reason the original command failed, was we think due to patching the server image and not the media, as explained by CGomez in http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/365701-impossible-to-install-gui-on-server-core-2012-caveats

It’s a poor show from Microsoft that such a basic set of steps leads to such a complicated error.

P.S. 01-Jun-14
I forgot to mention that the commands in the blog above did work. What didn’t work was the subsequent reboot and that was due to VMWare tools which don’t work on the combination of Workstation 8 and Server 2012R2.

Adding to Server Core

Adding to Server Core

Good old Microsoft!

Yes folks, I have been studying for my first Microsoft exam: Microsoft Windows Server 2012 70-410 with R2 updates! The first thing in the book is installing Windows Server. One of the useful features in Server 2012, Microsoft claim, is the ease in which you can move between the Core (the new default) and the GUI options.

Since there’s no substitute for trying it out, I installed server core and have spent many hours since using the published commands to try and upgrade it to a GUI, so far without success. Talk about falling at the first hurdle. This book is 400 pages and this is pretty much the first question in the test. Great.

Along the way I have learnt some stuff: how to remotely manage the server (in a workgroup), the key part of which is running

Set-Item WSMan:\localhost\Client\TrustedHosts -Value <YourtargetServernameHere> –Force

from a Windows 8 client with RSAT installed and having set the administrator password on the server and allowed remote management via sconfig.

The published way to perform the GUI install is using the powershell command install-windowsfeature. My results are as follows:

GUIoption1

A Google of that revealed several suggestions, the majority of which suggest using the -source switch and adding GPOs or editing the registry to change the behaviour of WSUS, none of which worked.

There are various options of syntax described for the -source option but I have tried many and various and none of them worked for me.

The latest, and most promising blog was to be found at http://blogs.technet.com/b/askds/archive/2012/09/20/windows-server-2012-shell-game.aspx

Which suggested specifying a wim file as the source using the following command:

Install-WindowsFeature server-gui-mgmt-infra,server-gui-shell -source:wim:d:\sources\install.wim:4

Great, I thought! This time it would be right, it would work and no one would have to get nailed to anything. Having invoked this command and let it think for 5 minutes (long past when it had failed before) I get:

GUIoption2Oh well, back to the virtual drawing board.

 

More on mail

I would like to expand on my previous post. Here are three facts, as I see them.

  • Mail is the supreme app of the internet age.
  • Mail is old, it’s protocols were designed in the 70’s.
  • Social media and networking are massive and continue to grow.

Mail has a vast untapped potential in the social media scene. Well that may sound odd since mail is the core networking app but what I mean is that is very restrictive in the way it was designed. One person, one mailbox. That is basically the premise of mail. The protocols are all designed around that fundamental design parameter. Back when mail was designed, social media was four decades in the future and one user could, via their credentials connect to “their” mailbox. Other technologies were adopted to give rise to usenet newsgroups. These however were at the other, public, end of the spectrum and are considered obsolete, according to Wikipedia.

What I’m thinking of is something in between the individual and everybody. A group, be it a family, a club or some other organisation with enough common trust that a single set of mail is shared by them all.

The “design principles” are something like:

  • Every member can see every message
  • Every member can send messages
  • Every member has a unique identifier within the group
  • Every member can use multiple and disparate devices and software to read and send messages

It sounds pretty simple but I suspect in reality, it is a massively difficult problem in message data synchronisation and retention.

Pity this post has been sitting in draft for a month!